The aim of this study is to analyze the concept of negative anthropology in Giorgio Agamben’s philosophy, with a particular focus on the deconstruction of the categories of inoperativity (inoperosità) and potentiality (potentia) as central elements of his critique of the Western metaphysical tradition. Unlike classical anthropological models that constitute the subject through active or essential characteristics, Agamben proposes an alternative perspective in which human being is revealed through the capacity “not” to actualize its potentiality but to retain it in the mode of pure possibility. This idea gains relevance in the context of digital control and the ideology of hyper-productivity. Agamben’s critique of the apparatus of activity demonstrates that inoperativity is not a passive state but rather a primordial existential dimension of human existence. In this framework, inoperativity assumes not a negative but a constitutive role: it creates a space for an alternative experience of time and being, allowing the subject to remain in the mode of potentiality rather than forced actualization. Inoperativity thus emerges as a form of resistance to functional necessity, enabling a radical rethinking of the ontology of action and inaction. A key concept in Agamben’s philosophy is “potentiality-not-to” (potenza-di-non), which contrasts with traditional ontological and political paradigms that define the subject through action. “Potentiality-not-to” expresses not merely the capacity to act but also the ability to hold oneself in a state of unrealized possibility, enabling the subject to remain outside predetermined functionality. For Agamben, true freedom manifests not in the coercive realization of potential but in the capacity to preserve it in a state of incompleteness. This renders human existence fundamentally open, excluding teleological closure or predetermination. In this context, Agamben’s negative anthropology does not simply reject traditional categories of subjectivity but also proposes a new ethics of immanence, where freedom is realized not through action but through a radical suspension. This suspension creates the conditions for alternative forms of being, grounded in the refusal of instrumentalized productivity.

The aim of this study is to analyze the concept of negative anthropology in Giorgio Agamben’s philosophy, with a particular focus on the deconstruction of the categories of inoperativity (inoperosità) and potentiality (potentia) as central elements of his critique of the Western metaphysical tradition. Unlike classical anthropological models that constitute the subject through active or essential characteristics, Agamben proposes an alternative perspective in which human being is revealed through the capacity “not” to actualize its potentiality but to retain it in the mode of pure possibility. This idea gains relevance in the context of digital control and the ideology of hyper-productivity. Agamben’s critique of the apparatus of activity demonstrates that inoperativity is not a passive state but rather a primordial existential dimension of human existence. In this framework, inoperativity assumes not a negative but a constitutive role: it creates a space for an alternative experience of time and being, allowing the subject to remain in the mode of potentiality rather than forced actualization. Inoperativity thus emerges as a form of resistance to functional necessity, enabling a radical rethinking of the ontology of action and inaction. A key concept in Agamben’s philosophy is “potentiality-not-to” (potenza-di-non), which contrasts with traditional ontological and political paradigms that define the subject through action. “Potentiality-not-to” expresses not merely the capacity to act but also the ability to hold oneself in a state of unrealized possibility, enabling the subject to remain outside predetermined functionality. For Agamben, true freedom manifests not in the coercive realization of potential but in the capacity to preserve it in a state of incompleteness. This renders human existence fundamentally open, excluding teleological closure or predetermination. In this context, Agamben’s negative anthropology does not simply reject traditional categories of subjectivity but also proposes a new ethics of immanence, where freedom is realized not through action but through a radical suspension. This suspension creates the conditions for alternative forms of being, grounded in the refusal of instrumentalized productivity.